C M S
The Campaign for Military Service
2027 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Voice: 202-265-6666
Fax:202- 265-7393
Email:
lift-the-ban@access.digex.com
-----------------------------------------
LIFT THE BAN / LIFT THE PHONE
The Congressional hearings start on March 29th.
Now, more then ever your calls are URGENTLY needed.
You can right the balance.
Call your Congressperson and Senator NOW!
US Congress Hotline: 202-224-3121
-----------------------------------------
FACT SHEET
GAY MEN, LESBIANS AND BISEXUALS IN THE MILITARY
* THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY BAN
The Department of Defense (DOD) excludes all gay men,
lesbians and bisexuals from serving in the armed forces. DOD
Directive 1332.14 states flatly that: "Homosexuality is incompat-
ible with military service." The Directive also states that:
"The presence in the military environment of persons who engage
in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a
propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the
accomplishment of the military mission." Under the Reagan
Administration, not only homosexual conduct but a servicemember's
mere identification as being gay, lesbian or bisexual became
grounds for dismissal.
* THE MILITARY'S RATIONALE FOR THE POLICY
The DOD's stated rationale for the policy is not based on
an argument that gay people are not good fighting soldiers. The
military now openly acknowledges that there are thousands of gay
men, lesbians, and bisexuals who are currently serving in the
armed forces with valor and merit.
Instead, the military's argument is based on simple discrim-
ination. Without presenting any verified justifications, the
exclusion policy merely asserts that the following elements in
the military will inevitably be undermined by the presence of
openly gay personnel: discipline, good order and morale; mutual
trust and confidence; unit cohesion; the system of rank and
command; assignment, deployment, recruitment and retention.
* WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MILITARY'S RATIONALE?
The military's rationale is unsupported by any evidence
that gay servicemembers, by their very presence, will adversely
affect good order and morale. Rather, the policy is premised on
two unproven assumptions: 1) straight servicemembers will have
such adverse reactions to openly gay servicemembers that the
military mission will necessarily be compromised, and 2) there is
no way to reduce these adverse reactions through strong military
leadership so that adverse effects do not occur.
These assumptions are exactly the ones that were used to
argue against integrating African-Americans into the military.
Bottom line -- these assumptions are wrong. First, many straight
servicemembers currently know and work with comrades who are gay
and have no difficulty with that fact. Second, consistent with
our experience with race integration, strong military leadership
against discrimination and harassment does mitigate adverse
responses from others. The Defense Department's own internal
studies, which on at least three occasions have found gay people
to be suitable for military service, support this assessment.
The fact that prejudice exists among some people has never
been a valid reason to cater to that prejudice and reaffirm it.
Rather, it is the responsibility of the government to take active
steps to counter such prejudice.
* WHAT WOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF LIFTING THE BAN?
Ending the ban would increase, not decrease, military
effectiveness. Readiness is increased when each servicemember is
free to perform at his or her most effective level, unburdened by
fear of disclosure of sexual orientation that will result in
discharge. Existing military policies adequately address con-
cerns such as discipline, good order and the system of command.
These measures include strict sanctions against fraternization
between the ranks, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and
other conduct that could undermine unit readiness. Ending the
ban would also save millions of dollars. A 1992 GAO study found
that it cost $493,195,968 just to replace gay military personnel
discharged from 1980-1990.
* WHAT IS THE MILITARY'S POLICY UNDER THE "COMPROMISE"
VOTED ON BY THE SENATE?
Under the compromise provision, the military's policy is
essentially the same as before. The only two changes are: 1)
applicants are no longer asked if they are gay, and 2) service-
members who say they are gay continue to be processed through the
discharge system, but may ultimately have that discharge suspend-
ed and be placed in "standby reserve." Servicemembers who
acknowledge they have engaged in gay conduct are still subject to
full discharge. While the existing military policy is thus
effectively the same for the next few months, President Clinton's
commitment to changing this policy within the coming months, and
his belief that this policy is unconstitutional, has not changed.
* WHY SHOULD CONGRESS SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S PLEDGE TO
OVERTURN THE BAN?
The ban against gay people in the military runs counter to
the basic principles of fairness and justice on which our Nation
stands. The way to deal with fears and stereotypes is to send a
message that such prejudice will not be tolerated, rather than
affirm the prejudice through a discriminatory policy that is
unnecessary for a strong and effective military force. Gay
people should not have to fight their country in order to defend
their country.